amount of money, $70 million. the unit other institution will be more and that's another discussion we do have the sense that is happened we have had every major corporation who is interested in manufacturing in the hearts of the old steel belt in youngstown, downtown. we had siemens come in and they donated $440 million worth of software to youngstown state university. you can begin to see how this is going to have a ripple effect. the people who manufacture 3-d printers and want to be involved in manufacturing are calling our chamber of commerce our chamber of commerce in saying hey we want to relocate and expand the net region. .. tiger grant, $20 million bucks it stimulated $150 million worth of

investments. there are investments all over the country. that is one of the key instances where investments help businesses and they help grow the economy. this has then that holistic approach. and i appreciate what you said on how the entitle many reforms. he tell me about p the business tax reform and how that will fund the projects.

there is one time transition money. that happens in any system. you see it in terms of this one time revenue. we would like t >> while it encourages growth in the u.s. while you would encourage growth anden investment in the u.s. you will also encourage both india, infrastructure. in tefrps rms of tax reform. trying to put together two things that are about growth and the economy and things that we can come to agreement on. >> i think when you look at the provisions. raise the minimum wage. saying that people can reduce the hours of work. if you look at the credits in here for expending child and

other family tax credits. this is the toughest it's been for main street. with all due respect as i listen we've heard the numbers over and over, and we heard 8.3 trillion in debt over 25 years. and over. we have heard $8.3 trillion in debt. and $25 trillion in debt by 2024. my constit wepts of my district

are expected to balance their budgets. i'm going to tell you the budget is the issue with people. they understand the importance of balancing the budget. as a member of the transportation intrastructure committee we are working on how to maintain our highways and waterbays and intrastructure. and make it profit anl for fute twr future generations. it is recommended that congress pass a reauthorization bill that relies on extra revenue.

it covers the protected shortfall. the future trust fund would receive a $150 billion. yet the program continues to ignore the real problem where we get future revenues. my question to you is as our economy continues to recover, because she's are the people lake myself will be able to hire more people why do you think that is taxing and regulations helps the economy instead of bur developing me. so i understand an appreciate there have been 18tieen differe

cuts and whether that is encouraging contracting or it looks like this year for the first time we will meet the goals. >> do you frl think increasing taxes though in the short-term really solves the problem? >> how am i supposed to pay for the minimum wage increase. >> we believe it is a thing that will be hopeful to our economy overall. >> i think with regard to a number of states have done it and not seen negative economic impacts. and when actually when people employees have more money, general lly speaking. >> car dealerships. >> it does make a difference freps in terms of their ability to purchase and be a part of the

economy. >> how is the small business opener supposed to pay for it. >> we believe as people have more money it will increase business's ability to grow. >> does the president address funding the highway fund in the near future. >> you addressed the difficult fiscal situation we are in. and we have discussed issues of defense spend iing and we have discussed revenue. we suggested that what we believe is the best approach to make progress on this sish. do you think raising the federal fuel tach x is the way to do th >> we are willing to work with

the congress on a bipartisan basis. in the house with chairman schuster on finding theclusi s n solutions thank you very much and i cheeyield back. >> thank you and i hope you are having a good day. you are a breath of fresh air. let's go to the record. >> during the last years of the bush administration we had 1.4 million jobs into the economy. that is public and private. now in the private sector, in the private sector between 10 and 2008, we lost 462,000

private sector jobs. let's go to the record. so in the past 47 months that is almost how long -- that is the record. there are no increases on taxes. strength in our middle class. and it is not good policy.

is really doing any justice to the public? forget about the politicians, our title certainly comes and goes. le less than 2% of gdp. their plan called for the deficit $819 billion in 2013. what was the deficit for 2013? >> $680 billion. >> well, that is much less than

what simpson bowles projected sit not? >> it is. >> so last year, 2013, president obama exceeded the deficit reduction goal of simpson bowles of $139 billion. am i correct? >> yes, sir. >> yes, sir i would have to look at what numbers they have at what years. >> do you know what the number will be? >> it is 2016 and it will be 531. gee have to look at these numbers. give the president and this administration some credit. i have been pretty tough on them. give them some cd. they did something else. they did something that bass wa

positionti positive. but you are never going to give any credit to anybody except the pat on the back at the christmas party. superintendant th isn't that wonderful? >> does this plan raise the age for social security? >> no, sir. >> does it change the measure of inflation for social security? >> so this administration has managed to reduce the deficit in 2013 below bowles simpson to social security. >> so now we are going to wait for the response from the other side and debate the issue gagai.

thank you and good luck in your job. >> ten seconds to spare. a new record. >> mr. mcclintock. >>ter mr. chairman. welcome director berbell. did i under stand you correctly and this was the an ter that you were trying so hard to get out, that the deficit is not important to people, what is important is the economy. >> i think what people are interested in are their own perm economy. job creation and their wages. >> the cbo has been screaming this warning at united states at us. >> you run up $6.8 trillion in

the last year and he held the prior record. it seems to me that mat sssive deficit spending was the key to job growth that the bush administration should have ended the policies. we know from our open experience that if you live beyond your means today that $6.8 trillion run up by this add maybe strition is going to be repaid by the young people today as $56,000 on average per household.

>> i think there is a connection. >> where we are is you have run up more debt in five years than bush ran up in 8 and we have nothing to show for it. you wanted to show us that the budget will deliver stronger growth. with all due respect we have been hearing that for more than five years. household income has declaindec.

8.5 million private sector jobs were created. >> many of them can't get more than part-time. >> the vast majority was stated have all been consistent with private sector job growth. >> average household income is down not up. >> when i left the admi administration i left january 20th in 2001. >> yes, there was. >> the policies of the clinton administration i applaud. he made good on that promise and signed what amouned to the biggest capital gains tax cut in american history. he went after entitlement

spending. those were great policies. the problem that i see in this budget and administration is it has done the opposite. it has raised taxes. $550 billion annually. it has increased entitlement spending with the obama care entitlements. it has run up record number of deficits. you are doing the opposite and having the opposite results. the revenue ratios are the same as the clinton administration's. >> he was reducing spending. swroo we are -- >> discretionary.

>> yeah. >> we are talking about the entire budget which brings me to the final question. you propose no reforms. i'm curious how you plan on doing that? >> the trillion dollars that occurs has been implementation. >> we have to keep this thing runs. miss lee. >> thank you very much. i apologized. i had another meeting. things got dhchanged around. i tonight believe anyone has asked you yet about the oversass account. i believe this is a so called police station holder at this point. >> there are strategies as it relates to the draw down in

afghanistan. i'm very concerned that the oco has become a slush fund of wasteful spending. the pentagon reserved money even though most troops are coming home. even though congress appropriated a total for war costs in oco, when are we going to be able to finally end this of the budget funding of cars and restore this account as a const constingenck account with the full oversight of congress.

>> you are right to reflect that we have gutt a policy into effect. in terms of our budget we reflect the 450 cap. with regard to the question of how we do funding over time, i think the congress will work to determine the best of that. i hope we can come to the agreement that it is a contingency fund add not a slush fund. let me ask you about the department of labor as it relates to people of color.

now, as a result of the 2009 om omnibus appropriate race act we put language in that said the secretary of labor shall provide a report to the senate of july 2009 detailing the actions that the department will take to ensure that the programs and policies will take to reduce disparities across racial and ethnic groups. is there anything that you can do to help us get this report back to us as described by the 2009 bill. swroo th >> i'm asking everything.

every add menstration official to help us. i have not been able to make any head way. >> so, we would appreciate that and finally, let me ask you in terms of job training programs that are targeted toward communities, is this the pathway out of poverty for these communities? also with long term unemployment being what it is. the skills airport there. is this part of a strategy? >> it is. get people to have those skills and make sure there is job creation. >> what is the amount in the budget for that. >> there are a number of difference programs. to apprentice ships.

there is a wide range. >> is it together to produce and appendix of document that organizes this programs and supports the security and economic independence? >> we'll provide that information to you if that would be helpful. >> take a look at the report that was put out ip tn the beginning of the week. >> thank you for coming before us. i want to start out picking up on something mr. flores said. when he said that his letter containing questions that he wrote last year or maybe he said

them verbally from the microphone, i know you are new at the arg izatiorganization yo nice person we don't know each other. can i get a commitment that you are going to go back and look for his questions and get these answered? thank you very much. >> these putting up a paper with notes to question her staff.

on insurance that on the fence. medical do you think we are spending more money on interest defense or other discretionary programs with responsible use? >> they are not where we want to

spend and invest in the country, and, two, i would focus on public debt versus gross debt, but the point is with the interest payment and question of that. i reflect on appointments made by a couple colleagues. been ma are in is large and has been dug over a long period of time. when you look at the budget you see the deficit reduction that occurs that the ratio is two to one in terms of spending. we do not believe that revenue is the answer. we believe that you need all pieces to par sticipatparticipa. you talk about americans don't care about debt or care more about jobs and the economy. do you stand by that.

the people i talked to and i come from the people that elected the patieresident i thi they are concerned when we are paying more than interest payments. >> i think what the american people are caring about is yes, i think they care about debt. i think they care about how they're roads are. >> do you think the people of america care more about themselves or their children or chaer children of tomorrow? >> those chaern thildren that d exist. >> they say nope give me my food

stamps, my unemployment check and my road and bhaefr awhatevet the debt on people that don't exist yet and they don't vote. because that is what i hear you saying. >> i apologize if that is what you take from my comments. i mean to say that we need to consider the issues that are in front of us. the debt is an important one. defending our nation is an important one. making sure that those children have pre-school is another. how you balance those considerations. beare all trying to have a conversation about. >> tfr mhank you mr. chairman. i'm going to follow up on what

my colleague had said. i think there are delicate balance aps s here. and i think it is very important to remember and i care about my chi che children and lots of generation of noke folks who were in this together. they were going to have to build roads if they don't have to do it now. and so, i think that we can't to, i do at least in this contest waco contemco contemco context want to be careful for all of us. this budget focuses on more

economic opportunities. i hard that i come from a state that is struggling. new mexico is not seeing the kind of recovery that anyber else in the country and it has been really difficult. in that context when i know many of my colleagues have touched on this. i think it bears some repeating for the record that we have gone through many i think are independent i independenting issues that have negatively impacted our economy and have caused real harm. the 2011 debt crisis impacted it by $9 billion. it reduce the real gdp he both

by 2016. between 0.2 and 0.6 percentage points. after all these shelf inflicted ku wounds, it seems to me that we want to move forward in creating jobs. i think the things that work for all of us, i have a district that wants jobs. imhopeful that we turned a corner. i want to highlight a couple of things that you did. we don't want to harm seniors and children and you talked about shifts in disabilities policies. they will be employed and we

have done lots of that work where we want the least restrictions here. i do think there are different dynamics that we don't take into consideration and we need to do a better job at that. this budget provides $100 million to do family care for paid medical leave. i think that is economic security and i appreciate that we have increased investments in health services. as a result of kidney failure and related issues. so thank you very much for that. i want to talk about small businesses. what does the budget do to help

create jobs? >> i have two important centers in my state. >> it would depend on what they are for. tax kcredits may be ways to tha can do that. i think new mexico could benefit by doing more manufacturing. can the m eeltep grants expand production lines? >> we have a company that can make cars and parts of those parts ip our state. >> with regard to the specifics of the nep i would hope that there are a number of things where it is the tax credits, nep, there are a range of things

that are focused on promoting that. >> thank you. >> okay. you have five minutes early. this is your first day testifying. you had budget this morning. >> i have ddid. >> i appreciate your service. >> thank you for coming. please get back to the members in writing that which you have committed to and this hearing aajourped. >> thank you mr. chairman, thank you.

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> during the testimony on the pentagon budget, he talked about the situation in ukraine. see the hearing on cspan.org. here's a little of what he said. >> general dempsey and i have been in constant touch with our fellow ministers in charge at nato as well as russia, ukraine. in fact, today, we are putting together a call for me with the new minister of defense for ukraine over the last couple weeks. had conversations with the previous two ministers. general dempsey spoke this

morning with the russian chad who expressed a number of points that i'll let general dempsey note. i spoke saturday with the russian minister of defense about this. we have also constantly been in touch, as i said, with our collaborators on our side of the atlantic ally, nato partners in particular on the issue. i was asked nato last week where i attended the regularly scheduled nato ministerial. we took a few hours to meet with the nato-ukraine commission.

we had then the deputy minister of defense with us of ukraine and spent some time with him. across the administration, our efforts, as you know, mr. chairman, have been focused on deescalating prices, supporting the new ukrainian government with economic assistance, and reaffirming our commitment to eastern and central europe. i strongly support this administration's approach to this deescalation. as you all know, secretary kerry was in kiev yesterday. he's in paris today. he's schedule to meet with russian foreign minister today. there was a nato meeting yesterday. another nato meeting today. osce announced it is sending 35

observers to ukraine. the other forums that united states is part of is -- they are also meeting. the u.n. has had one security counsel meeting. i suspect will be more, and other activities along the diplomatic and economic front. i -- earlier this week, directer of didn't of defense suspend all military-to-military engagements with russia. in particular, that includes two trilateral exercises scheduled with the russians. one canadians and russians and the other was the norweigans and the russians. also this morning, the defense department is pursuing measures to support our allies including

stepping up joint training to our aviation detachments in poland. it's an area that i visited a few weeks ago, and augments our participation in nato's air policing mission on the baltic peninsula. our ucom commander, general breedlove, is meeting with eastern and central european defense. mr. chairman, i think everyone on this committee knows, and, in particular, i know senator mccain was in ukraine a few weeks ago, that this is a time for wise and steady and firm leadership, and it's a time for all of us to stand with the ukrainian people in support of their territorial integrity and sovereignty and we are doing that. that, in particular, is what president obama continues to do as we pursue diplomatic and

economic options. i'd like to, again, thank the committee, mr. chairman, for your role in this. >> in a few moments, look at the president's proposed budget.

>> host: joining me on set, the white house and economic reporter for the "washington post" to talk about the president's budget. so the overall number, what is it, and what do you make of it? >> guest: so the president sent a 3.9 trillion budget to the congress yesterday, and it's basically best suited for two different things. one, it's a political document, a road map for democrats running for reelection this year. it does not involve any big compromises, rallies the best, offers bread and butt ire democratic issues like expanding college access and education for young and poor kids, expanding tax credits to poverty, and former platforms democrats run on and appreciate it.

furthermore, it's not a tool for this year, but for 2015-2016, the final years of the obama presidency where he wants to get something dope before leaving, that 2017 date is coming sooner than anyonements or expects of the he is figuring out a policy for the final two years. >> host: is it realistic, though, that this policy plan gets through congress that he lays out in the budget? >> guest: no. i don't think anyone expects that the entire budget will pass congress. i don't know that that's happened or ever happened, and no one expects that, but there are things in there that might have some opportunity for bipartisan compromise depending on what happens this november. so, for example, the president proposed a reform of the business tax code. that would generate some one-time revenue to be used to build bridges and roads and kind of generate jobs, and that's similar to a proposal, in many ways, that representative dave camp, representative of the house and ways and means

committee released last week. there's definitely ideas in the budget that could be grounds for compromise in the final two years of his presidency. in thie indicate where he may act alone? guest: there is not so much of that. the budget is a document that specifies what he wants out of congress, what he wants congress to appropriate. executiveent has an action plan that he is implementing now. he is already taking some action. he has many more this year. the budgets almost never get through. this budget is not so much focus on the executive actions -- it is focused more on what he would like congress to do. host: what has been the reaction so far from congress? guest: protectable. republicans have slanted and democrats have praised it. is arats even admit it roadmap for those midterm elections and that is largely a messaging argument. -- a messaging document.

that paul ryanet will release, there is room for contra mice. i mentioned the business tax reform. one of the big -- compromise. i mentioned the income -- business tax reform. the president proposes expanding a tax credit so it is more generous to childless workers. isht now, the eitc better for those with families. he is expanding a, and republicans like the eitc. alsoand rubio have reported expansion. host: how do these areas of copper might get folded into legislation and what if the vehicle to get it done? guest: i don't think anyone will say anything can get done this year on legislation. last december, representative ryan and senator patty murray, the chairman of the senate budget committee, agreed to basically -- spending limits,

spending caps for 2014, and those are pretty much in law now. very their election is that official to the president. -- is very beneficial to the present. there is potential of replacing some of the spending cuts to take effect next year or replacing some of the current, limited spending caps with more generous spending caps by either eliminating some very specific tax loopholes that republicans also do not like, like interest on hedge funds and private equity firms, or perhaps finding alternative spending cuts in medicare or other programs that republicans might support. host: what does the president's budget say about the two-year budget deal that patty murray and paul ryan were able to strike for 2014 and 2015? what has been the response from congress to what the president lays out in the budget? guest: the white house is a slightly confusing perspective on the spending limits that were

presented of ryan and -- that representative ryan and murray had. by paying for any increase by closing tax loopholes a they propose what they call an opportunity, economic, and security path initiative which is worth it to $6 billion for , and5, and -- for 2015 $28 billion additional for education, $28 billion for defense. manufacturing, energy, efficiencies, also have bread- and-butter issues. going really thinks it is to happen before the elections. it is possible that there could be some compromise after the election because ryan and murray did find a compromise before last december when no one really expected they would.

so it is not guaranteed not to happen. so this sort of provides a roadmap for what might happen. host: the president's budget is one thing. isty murray and paul ryan's another, but then you have the role of the appropriators and all of this. guest: right. the appropriators figure out the budget for this year, it in it happens behind the scenes. the omnibus bill, a lot of appropriations for this year at the top level police and many individual as well. that work is going to continue. the president and the white house will start to affect that balance because congress -- there's still an ability to shift or shape what some of the lower level accounts look like. really this is a battle about what happens after this year. host: and then what? thet: if republicans win senate committee and large their majority in the house, is very hard to see obama achieving much in the final two years of his

presidency. maybe republicans will want to do a deal on corporate taxes or eitc, but it is hard to imagine. if you expect democrats to win the house. republicansld see looking at a jobs initiative, and infrastructure initiative, closing some tax loopholes. they really depend somewhat on the resolution of the house, of senate elections because the likelihood as we will stay with what we have. host: joe tweeps in about congress' role -- the president's budget is a proposal based on his vision for the country. congress' job is to balance outlays and revenue. guest: that is technically true but the president provides leadership. the republican budget will be pastore introduced in a few weeks. republicans controlled the house, that is being drafted by representative paul ryan. visions are almost

diametrically opposed. obama wants to expand those programs. these visions are not reconcilable right now. the democrats do not even plan to put out a budget but there is no official budget making congress this year. this is more a political document that will frame two different visions. host: on poor americans and is so, income inequality gap, you mentioned paul ryan wants to address that. what do the republicans want to do? what has changed recently is revoke and have started to focus on the fact that poverty, inequality -- they prefer to inequalityon income and more an economic opportunity. for several years, republicans have been focused on the deficit, cutting spending and taxes, and now there is a shift to focus more on issues like security, poverty, etc.

, that they address that is a big, big debate in the republican party. democrats are kind of result on what they want to do. republicans are still searching for ways. in general, republicans like ideas like the eitc, measures that encourage people to work harder or longer hours in exchange for government help, but they are still not really a consensus on how republicans who try to address these issues. it is more a consensus that we should focus on these issues. host: we are talking about the president's 2013 budget blueprint that he unveiled yesterday with zachary goldfarb of the "washington post." on capitol hill today, the president's cabinet members will be defending that proposal. the omb director, silvio laurel insilvio barwell, will be front of the house. we will have coverage of the committee on c-span3, and also treasury secretary jack lew will be on capitol hill this morning before the senate finance committee. talking about the president's

2015 budget proposal as well. that is 10:30 this morning a.m. eastern time, c-span3. steve, you are up first for zachary goldfarb. taking myank you for call. i am a retired army, i see the calling back our foreign policy, but i'm not here to talk about horses and bayonets. i think this is the segue into raising federalism. i did hear you say that we are spending $600 billion for infrastructure in of the report $7 trillion budget deal. the $3.7 trillion budget deal. i understand paul krugman says we are not spending enough. not the issueit's when programs are managed properly.

95 anddrive down route hit the six nash and her section of 198 and 95, they have had jersey walls up there for five years, and this is all part of the stimulus, the recovery and reinvestment act of 2009. so i do not know what the excuse is. this gives infrastructure spending a bad name when funds like this are poorly managed, when there is no movement on a project. i think that this says that for itself. and i don't want to hear anybody saying republicans are against infrastructure spending. it is the mismanagement of the funds that bothers people. the privateng -- in sector, you do not mismanage funds. you do not have unlimited funds and unlimited tax dollars. that is what the government seems to give -- we can just tax infinite him and then the money is wasted. host: overall, you agree with the idea from the president that if you put money into infrastructure, that you will

grow the economy. caller: undoubtedly. spending -- he goes out to the economy, that is common sense. the problem is management. that is where reagan federalism comes in. if you give the money to the states and let the minutes on a local level, i think that is a better way to go. these people are the experts. i am just the old army guy. host: you were in the army for how long? caller: 20 years active-duty duty, 1.5 years active reserves. host: and you are out now, second job? caller: yes. guest: i think the caller reaches an interesting question and it is true that many projects or some projects are mismanaged. exactly how many it's hard to say. it is a very big federal government. it is a lot of money. you are going to see some infrastructure projects bogged down in delays. however, i do not think many people would disagree with the fact that the united states has a profound infrastructure

deficit, and you visit top airports, you visit top places of transportation, roads and bridges across the country, they are fallen down, they are broken. many economists think it is a no-brainer right now for the federal government to spend more on infrastructure because basically foreign countries are willing to lend us money at very low interest rates will stop interestastructural -- rates. that will boost. host: is this the president one proposal on job creation? guest: no, there are other proposals, too, but this is the big proposal. you want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on infrastructure over the coming years. that is substantial. that is the most direct idea and that is rigged for unemployed populations because it is easy to get reattached to the labor force, to get back to work by

doing construction work. aost: we will go to lind next. caller: hi. i take care of my mother, who is on social security. the medicare cuts -- i am a baby boomer. we are supposed to take care of our families. what happens to taking care of our families? host: what cuts are you talking about, linda? caller: they say the economy is getting better. keep us in the usa instead of spending and overseas. host: ok, so foreign aid. guest: many families feel hurt that the government has not supported the more in terms of ui benefitswe saw retiree suddenly. that left many people without any money. that is a big problem. medicare, social security to some degree in the budget

negotiations that happened periodically on capitol hill. foreign aid is a very small part of the budget. 2% or less. i don't think that is a major focus of where budget talks are going. host: that's go to manchester, washington, democratic caller. changedi comments have since i have been listening to the conversation. first, i want to say that the province sector does fail. and reagan brought us one of the biggest debtor nations -- i am sorry -- reagan brought a lot of debt to this nation. havingas the republican no plan on poverty, that isbecause they never really cared about poverty. from what i have seen. as far as yours first speaker you had on talking about the military budget line item stating the same with no increase, republicans should jump all over that or conservatives.

we are not increasing it. we can't, they, we cannot address the poor, yes, we are still a struggling nation. you can tell that i am a democrat. i am not just a democrat. i have been independent for years. i have never voted a straight partyline ticket ever. i told my stuff i would never do it. but this last election, i said you know why, i cannot tell my seven my conscience i am an independent for voting for people that i just cannot support. i do want to raise one more veryent -- i'm frustrated about the fact of where would this country be if the republicans actually wanted to help our president and help this country? divorced parents with the hatred of the parent before the love of the child. the nancy pelosi was speaker, she put forth legislation that she knew could get by. they were still democrats.

they were a successful congress. host: ok, we got your point. zachary goldfarb. guest: i think the caller reflects a lot of frustration especially among democrats that republicans have worked many points to get a new way of the president's agenda and many believe that if republican that been more compromising the economy would be better off. people in the white house believe that too. but a divided government is part of this country's culture in history and should be expected. you have seen republicans -- democrats get in the way republican residents and so it is not so surprising in that sense. host: we have a lot of roads repaved with the president's billions in 2010, so our roads are not crumbling. sorry about yours. and obama budget results in a byional debt of $25 trillion 2024. what does that say about the deficit? guest: it is true that the

president's budget does put the debt around $25 trillion by 2024. that is kind of a relevant number in some ways really because the economy will grow significant way between now and then. the axle actual -- the actual level of the debt is irrelevant. with a much larger debt in some countries than you would compare -- you would not compare our debt now to 100 years ago before years of inflation in years of economic growth when the population was much smaller. what is really relevant is the debt relative to the size of the overall economy because that gives you an objective sense of how much we are really indebted as a country compared to our economic activity. the president's budget projects the debt held by the public, which is debt owed to people outside the government. it would be about 69% of the economy in 2024. that is actually a decline from 74% today. that is good news and bad news. the good news is that we are actually having smaller deficits

and our economy is growing faster sword that is going down. the bad news is that it is so bad by historical standards when over the past 40, 50 years, debt to gdp has averaged around 40%. so it is not good in historical terms, but it is good in recent history. the big problem is over the following decades when people are retiree, that that is going it isl back to -- that not going to fall back to the store will norms, it is going to rise again because social security and medicare. so the problem is not over as the person on twitter points out. but the problem for the next 10 years is considerable. host: that is the debt. what is the deficit number and this budget proposal? define the two. debt: people talk about and deficit in one sentence and it is confusing. deficits are basically how much the government spent in a year less how much they raise in revenue. so if they spent more than a raise in -- than they raise in revenue, they have a

deficit. right now the deficit is in the high 3% to around 4%. next year it will fall into the 2%'s. that is a really big decline from where it was in 2010, only 10% of gdp because the recession had pushed spending so high. so that is progress, and as long as the economy is growing faster than 2%, if the deficit is 2%, the debt is a jerk line -- the debt is in decline because that is an accumulation of annual deficit. every year you spend a little more than you have and then you borrow money to make up the difference and that adds to the national debt. so deficits according to the president's budget will also come down quite significantly over the next 10 years if all of his policies were put into place , 1.6% of gdp, which is easily sustainable over a long period

of time. he president achieve this by raising taxes by more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years, mainly on wealthy people, but on middle-class people to buy raising tobacco taxes, for example. it is a huge controversy because of the significant increase in taxes. host: john in washington, independent caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. independent because most of us americans have caught onto the big blame game. , andeach blame each other basically they are on the same team. they have different ways to go about it. my main problem is the epa. we are giving him close to $8 million, and it'll do nothing for us. they let the fracking industry go unregulated, they let solar management go unregulated. they are spraying our skies, trying to dim the sun to fight

global warming. nobody knows about it. 02 global sky watch and you can find out all about it. i want to know where is the epa taking us from this -- his name is david keith from nasa, and he wants to spray and he has been spraying our son might to dim it. zachary goldfarb, i know you do not ever the epa so severely, but what is part of the agenda this year? hist: the president -- and budget, he proposes billions of dollars for climate research and related endeavor to. -- related endeavors. it is to continue current operations and the epa is pursuing some major controversial regulations, for example, the regulation of coal fire power plants, both new and old. they are trying to put coal- fired power plants, stop the creation of new power plants that are very bad for the environment. it is very controversial. many republicans and businessmen

and businesswomen hate that idea, but it is the main executive action the president can take to try to combat i'm a change. host: -- combat climate change. host: margie is next. caller: i think you need to have some different callers. when you have the reporters on the long and the morning, all of them so far have complained about the wealthy getting screwed by the little people and if you look up strategy mismanagement, we are the ones being killed by the psycho maniacs in washington, and they are getting billions of dollars for killing us. look up strategy, defense, management, people wil. people at c-span know it. they know what is going on. that is why they are giving away $5,000 to the school. host: c-span knows what? thatr: surely you all know

they get paid every time they have to pay a tax or regulation or compliance. they get a billion dollars for that. don't tell me you don't know that. host: members of congress? they all do., insider trading -- as long as it is in the public, it is not insider trading so what they are doing is getting it all out so that wall street knows about it. host: margie, i am not sure if to the making reference student can contest that we just showed you, the 2014 winners have been announced, they know who they are. we just showed a little bit of the top winners and more about the contest. if you want to learn more about student can, go to our website, c-span.org. you can go to studentcam.org as well, and you can see all of the details there about the awards that we give out to the students for doing these -- participating in his annual documentary. zachary goldfarb.

guest: i think the caller probably reflects a lot of frustration among americans with the pace and shape of the economic recovery over the past five years. it is hard to believe, but is almost five years since the recession ended, which happened in june, 2009. since then, the economy has recovered a lot, the unemployment rate has come down. but very uneven. people to some degree blame washington for not trying to figure out a way to make the recovery and 50 population in a broader way. few years ago a looked at the wealth of people in congress, and congress 30 years ago had a lot more people who were just middle-class and came to congress. now, there are a lot more millionaires in congress and people in congress are part of is 1%, so i think the caller frustrated incher's frustration with a lot of americans about whether congress is looking out for the average person in the way they should be. host: on twitter -- do you think

someone who makes $1 million a year and someone who makes $1 billion a year should have the same top tax rate? guest: i don't know if i have a strong opinion on that. i can tell you right now that essentially they do have the same top tax rate technically, but the big tax often -- much of the income of people who make a lot of money, and the millions or billions, there are not that many people who make in the billions, make their money in income and dividends and so forth and sometimes those are taxed at different rates. and so that can cause a lot of controversy. another big thing is the state taxes. people can pass on many millions to their heirs without paying taxes, and that causes a situation where you have questions about economic opportunity and whether everyone is getting a fair tax. host: what does the president's

budget say about wealthier americans and how much a should pay?- they should guest: the president's budget would raise taxes by a little over $1 trillion over the next 10 years, and it would primarily do so -- the lion's share would come from new taxes on wealthy people. a few examples -- the president all-digitalto 28% actions in the tax code. that would make the deductions like the home mortgage interest reduction, local property tax reduction much less prosperous for will wealthy people to use. to carriedo a limit interest, which i mentioned earlier, which is a loophole that hedge fund and private equity managers can use to avoid paying high income tax rates. a variety of other taxable souls -- other tax loopholes that benefit wealthy

people also. host: dan, you are next in tulsa, oklahoma, republican caller. good morning, go ahead. caller: ok. i was is listening earlier to a caller talking about the epa in talking about the world companies getting all these breaks. well, based on what i have read they pay $60net, million a day in leases and taxes. that ifyou going to pay you shut down the oil company and the guy that is supplying the energy for the united states? host: dan, where did you read how much they pay for leasing of the land and taxes? caller: well, that is just on the internet. goldfarb, theary oil companies do pay taxes and they do have to pay the federal government to lease these lands. guest: that is right. the reason the government thinks that if there is it is multi fold.

first, the government believes that these are public lands in many cases and so some of the benefits of that oil and gas should spread to people in those communities and around the country and not just into the pockets of the company. secondly, there is enforcement, environmental regulation in terms of government oversight when you are doing natural resources drilling index wishon in the u.s. to protect the environment, natural habitats and so forth. that needs to be paid for as well. i think the licensing fees go to that support. host: freelancer on twitter -- how much debt did bush leave? trillion dollars spent in eight years and now gop act like they had nothing to do with that. i cannot recall how much that was there when president obama came into the white house, but there is no question that under president george w. bush, the deficit and debt grew significantly, primarily because of the wars in iraq and afghanistan, which were not paid for -- the expansion of the

medicare part d entitlement, which was not paid for. and the significant bush tax cuts that also of course when not paid for. and so all those combined dramatically widened the debts over president bush's eight years. and the recession assertive in in last year this presidency 2007 put the nail in the coffin and wiped out government finances to a large degree. so there is no question that george w. bush's presidency was not good for federal finances overall. host: we are talking here this morning on the "washington journal" about the president's 2015 budget blueprint with zachary goldfarb of the "washington post." going outside of washington to get your take on what the president is proposing to congress. dan in tulsa, oklahoma, republican caller. go ahead, dan. workr: i have a relatively

seven days a week. he makes a lot of money, but when i was working in the oil, in the refineries and stuff in the unions, a lot of guys get paid double time on holidays and weekends and overtime, you know, like time and a half, and then they would not show up monday and tuesday. 40%.uld be, like, 30%, to you can tax the rich if you want to, but if you look at a history lesson, the only thing that brought down the roman empire was taxing the rich. think about that. host: all right, dan. sue in illinois. democratic caller. caller: well, the roman empire was a long, long time ago and things have changed substantially since the roman empire. we do not live in rome, we live in the united states. we want the people taxed at that are rich. they are not hurting. the wall street's as they're not hurting. says they arereet

not hurting. they have up to their money tenfold. get rid of the lunatics that are in washington. i notice you have a lot of republican callers. if your cousin works seven days a week, i am sure he is reaping his benefits. a do not take it out of the tax $14,000 me, who made last year, and you want to tax offiftysomething dollars out $200 a week when the rich keep getting richer and richer. america, wake up! host: all right, stu, the "wall street journal" wave and fading back to pelosi budget, and they say

host: zachary goldfarb, what is the impact of that on the economy? put upsince the caller the roman empire, i am going to continue with that for a second. i recently did a story for the "post" website based on some research, and he compared the wealth of top people in ancient rome to america today and found out that if you do an analysis, people today are still much, much richer, and the richer -- than the richest people were in roman history. you can buy much more labor for similar amounts.

what that amounts to is our country has enormous inequality, enormous wealth. the questions raised by the raised byhe questions the editorial is how should you divvy up that wealth? should you divvy it up at all to ensure quality share prosperity? it is a philosophical question in some ways. if you do not believe that people should be forced to give up part of your wealth, that is your answer. other people believe people should give up some of their wealth in order to provide others services or benefits and give others a chance, then you're not talking about the principle, you are talking about how to divvy it up, and that is a question of a map of judgment -- people like to say 90%, the debt is $25 billion, no one knows what these numbers actually mean. they are just numbers we use. really it is a question of how much do you believe we should divvy up the nation's bounty and how much do we help each other or try to help each other? host: that has less to do with economics and more to do with

morality and political philosophy? guest: i think so because one to decide, you first have to decide what you want your principles to be, and in the economics help you figure out how to do the numbers, how to do a program. economics is a science. you first have to decide whether you want to identify something as a disease before you figure out a cure. the cure is a legitimate disagreement within economics. the just spewing out numbers about wealth or the tax revenue -- the numbers are irrelevant unless you decide you want to make a value judgment about them. host: the "new york times" editorial that the president's budget. they say the what might have been budget. plan shows how many goals could have been won by cutting high end tax breaks. every dollar of which will be resisted by republicans. that is because they have failed the test that mr. obama laid out on tuesday.

as a country, we have to decide if we're going to protect tax breaks for the wealthy americans or if we're going to make smart investments necessary to create jobs and expand opportunity for every american. john, democratic caller. caller: good morning. i hope you can answer this question. what is going on with this emergency unemployment? is a dead? are they going to bring it back up or what? i don't know who to ask, that is why i am giving you a call. host: all right, john. guest: thank you for the question. it is a very difficult situation and many leaders of the "washington post," many callers on c-span have been asking about this question. democrats in congress are still searching for some sort of loop to extend the emergency insurance, but they do not have one. the president wants to find that, but his budget is not going anywhere in the near term,

so it is very hard, unfortunately, for many long- term unemployed americans, to see a path or this legislation getting through congress. getting is possible through the election season, and more here through constituents that they have been unemployed of time.g period but for now, it is not clear what path there might be for legislation like this. host: senate majority leader harry reid tweeting out that he filed a bill to renew benefits for the long-term unemployed. -- we willhis tweet vote on it in the next few days. make your voice heard!" the numbers he put -- americans who have lost their unemployment benefits -- 2 million and counting. we go to marry next and en -- we go to mary next in new york. independent caller. constitution calls

for the first thing for the country to do is to defend it. and every time you turn around, they keep taking away from the military. some of the military people were on food stamp, for god's sake. and i don't think that is right. what i take away from this one and give to everybody, give to overseas, give it everywhere, and the military is always getting the short end of the deal, yet they do the most and they don't have no overtime, believe me. host: mary, what is the solution? caller: the solution is if you're going to cut everywhere, you don't cut the military! you depend on them to keep this country free. host: where should they cut? caller: oh, there is places everywhere. they talk about waste and fraud. i don't think they should cut the military. those people don't get no

overtime. -- hewasn't for bush would have them on food stamps, god'sten's -- foor sake. the administration another proposal proposed a whole range of cuts to the military. it is a very tough choice. it seemed like a no-brainer that you would want to cut spending until recently that focus on any kind of cold war mentality programs. that is a challenge. definitely the most difficult part of the military cuts come in the area of benefits and retirement and medical programs for veterans and for active-duty servicemen and women. decided to, they change the cost of living adjustment for some military benefits. that caused a huge stir and congress swiftly rolled it back. whether and how you should adjust spending for military retirees and beneficiaries is

very hard to know. but there is a lot of argument from people on either side of the military, former military, that the system is totally broken right now. and you do have as the caller pointed out some people in the military on food stamps. and you have others receiving lavish benefits. i'm not a defense spending, but it is definitely an issue that involves many difficult questions about how we want to treat people who serve us in harms way. host: we are talking about the president's budget and zachary goldfarb mentioned the ukraine. there is money that the united states has set aside now for ukraine, for aid to the country. here is the "new york times" -- offer of aid to ukraine and pushes back at russian claims.

host: the united states will also send technical experts to the ukraine's national bank and finance ministry to help establish the legitimacy of the ukraine's coming elections. -- economics stations sanctions to punish russia in crimea are likely within days according to the senior state department official traveling with secretary kerry who was in the ukraine yesterday and who is meeting in paris with his russian counterpart as other other -- as well as other foreign members. that is infected to take place this morning east coast time in paris to discuss what is the to deal with ukraine and russia's role in it. ernest, gocaller, ahead. caller: i am wondering why we just don't go to a flat tax? manye called the show

times before, and it is always gone over, but everybody realizes we need to go to a flat tax. i do not understand why the government is not to say ok, let's do a flat tax across the board. we will have more money coming in then we will ever use. it is my question. thank you. guest: i understand why the caller and many other people find the flat tax as a nice notion. it certainly seems pretty simple. you just have a simple amount and you send a check and it is over. but that it is a bit more complicated than that. first of all, americans make a huge range of different money, of course, and a flat tax -- in the sense that people who make very little income today do not pay much tax and they would pay much more under a flat tax regime. and the people who make a lot of money would pay a lot less tax. so while it is true that a flat saveould be simpler, would on a lot of administrative costs related to taxes, in the end, it would really reverse a lot of the progressivity that has been

embedded in the american tax system for many years. host: here is an e-mail from one of our viewers, robert in atlanta who says -- any discussion of budget must are with the fact that over 60% of it is consumed by medicare, medicaid, and social security. unless we do with reducing the growth of those programs, they will eventually consume the asire budget, and i say that a progressive who cares about saving those programs. guest: i think that is an excellent point. the american government has all 10 been -- has often been described as the -- it is true that over the coming decades that unless lawmakers take more action, rising health care costs and retirement of the baby boomers will increasingly consumed all american domestic spending. and that is a major, major challenge, especially because while it is probably very decent and fair and moral for us to support aging seniors with decent medical care and social security benefits, that is not

where future economic growth comes from. it comes from a category of epending called nondefensi discretionary spending. education, job training, nih spending, spending that has returned overtime and equipped the population with the knowledge and skills to come up with new innovations, new ideas that make us healthier, happier, and more economically prosperous. spending on medicare and social security is rising, and spending on that category -- and spending is in decline. that is a big problem facing our country's future. host: the "washington post" editorial board agrees with that imo from one of our viewers saying the budget comes up short. without projects and entitlement, the government's hands are tied. "usa today's" editorial saying obama's budget docs tough itices on benefits, saying would spend more on mandatory benefits ban on all other government auctions over the next decade. here are the numbers in trillions. the benefits programs, 31

trillion dollars. nasa -- national defense, $6 trillion. interest payments almost $6 trillion. this is over a decade of mandatory benefits. is written byiew jay carney, the white house spokesman, saying that the budget presents the president's plan for creating jobs, growing the economy, expanding opportunity, and ensuring long- term fiscal stability. curtis in new hampshire, republican caller. the president is heading up your way today to talk about the budget and also minimum wage. go ahead, curtis. caller: good morning. i am a conservative, i am a republican only because of ron paul. i'm sorry that he is gone from the discussion. although the corporate media never let him be part of the discussion. i grew up in an in essay family -- an nsa family. i served in the latrine had the

opportunity to do surveillance over the berlin wall. i am really interested in foreign policy because of my --eriences, and i really when the guy was talking about the fall of the roman empire because it is very on point. and it is not necessarily because it just taxes the rich, but just the fact that it was an empire. we were warned about two things. foreign entangling alliances, which i believe led to 9/11, and also we were warned about the military-industrial complex. media we have a corporate that is part of the military- industrial complex. it pretty much excludes other points of view. actuallyhat c-span is part of that and probably one of the most effective parts of propaganda in this country. host: why do you say that, curtis? caller: well, because of the guest you have had on.

peter weng has been on like, three times in the last year. and you disenfranchise your callers by not letting them have the last word. you filibuster question, you do not hold your guests accountable when they do not answer questions, the volume is usually lower for the guest, do you have got to turn it up to hear it. producersr associate just gave the american people a chance to debate the issues. it does not. thank you. host: all right, curtis, well, we hope that you and others call in to challenge the guests. that is the beauty of the program. when a congressman says something that you disagree with, you can call in and tell them your point of view. it is bringing washington to all of you and your chance to talk directly to members of congress and other decision-makers here in washington. our guest today is agricultural, covers the white house and economics -- is zachary goldfarb, covers the white house and economics for the "washington post." our topic is the president's

2015 budget. let's go to jerry. go ahead, you are on the air. caller: i have a daughter who is a very good accountant with a very prestigious firm, and she told me that any rich person in taxes they pay 35% is either lying or they need to get a new accountant because of all the tax loopholes that they have. i would like to comment on that, please. host: zachary goldfarb, what can you tell us on that? guest: i do not know if every rich person who says that is orng, but many do not pay deny .6%. it is very true that many paythy americans -- do not 39.6%. it is very true that many at wealthy americans have loopholes because they are able to make bridie of tax rates, deductions, loopholes, depending on what you want to call them. this was probably most dems

ribeye mitt romney who had an between 30%x rates and 40%. everyone got a case study on this process then. the 2012, 2013 fiscal cliff tax deal reduced these tax breaks a little bit, but -- not tax breaks, but increased tax rates a little bit. wealthy americans decreased to some, but there are still many tax breaks that allow wealthy americans to reduce their real taxable income, and that is a key part of the president's proposal is trying to address that. host: how does the president's budget deal with the affordable care act? guest: it does not have that much to do with the affordable care act, but it does do a few things. if fully funds the limitation of the affordable care act. for several years, the hhs has been scraping by here and there to try to get the programs fully funded, and they have done it

because it is the president's top priority, but often the congress is never fully funded. severalet also proposes additional policies to build on the aca. for example, improving processes to medicare providers and other things. the main part of the aca is happening outside and is already in place and now it is an implementation question. host: on a blog this morning, the house to today is scheduled to vote to reduce the fine or tax for violating the obamacare individual mandate this year to $0. it will bethis -- interesting to see how democrats in both the house and senate react. host: on that, on this issue of the affordable care act in the delaying of the mande, here is

the "wall street journal" this morning. their headline is the insurers expect extension for old policies. host: now the administration has decided to extend the reprieve. one insurance official said the reprieve could be an additional year or longer. that would allow many to stay in place through at least 2016. also on the affordable care act this morning, a side story in the "wall street journal," arkansas lawmakers passed private option program so that the arkansas lawmakers continue allowing be safe to use medicaid

dollars to buy private health care insurance for poor residents, overcoming resistance from some republicans who said the program amounted to an endorsement of the affordable care act. we are talking about the 2015 budget and the president's plan. new jersey, what are your thoughts? caller: good morning. i have been listening to your program all morning and i listen to c-span religiously. thank you very much for being there. do not your caller ds condone the sin that we are in the 21st century and i think that is really looking back to roman days and all of that kind of stuff -- we are in the now. we are not in the past. what i am concerned about is congress is not being held accountable for the things that they don't do. sending ourbeen congressmen and women there to represent the people, yet

congress is only their for themselves. it is an ongoing job for the rest of their lives. they don't have any concern isut folks, and i think it really sad because america is the greatest country in the world, yet when you look at what they are doing to its people, it is really sad. i do not think there is anything wrong in trying to help folks in other parts of the world, but take care of home first. and if congress and especially a lot if the republicans had president, wee would have been in a much better situation. they just do not seem to get that. also, i do not understand -- what happened to the word recovery? the congress people shut the mainly thedown -- republicans. we lost $24 billion. the word is recovery. how do we get that money back? host: i'm sorry, i thought you were done there. zachary goldfarb. guest: i think the caller

reflect a lot of frustration in the nation's economic recovery and sadness that it has not benefited more people. i do not think it is true that people in congress do not care about people or a struggling. i just think there is a profound disagreement about the best way to address that from the federal government standpoint. republicans not believing government has much of a role to play, that the government really gets in the way of people advancing on their own. democrats really believe that government should be out there and helping people step-by-step get out of a difficult situation. through financial aid or other assistance. so it is a profound is agreement in congress and in the country, 50/50 on many issues about what to do about the nations major economic challenges. and congress reflects that. means, tweet -- by all address and social security and medicare, but do not use their future issues to a nor $17.5 a $17.5 -- to ignore trillion debt elephant in the room. naomi, republican caller.

caller: good morning. a couple of things here. talking about the budget -- i do not think that taxpayers should be paying for four-year-olds -- for preschool. -- it is much too young for regimented classwork. some five-year-olds are too young. as far as the roman empire -- definitely we are spreading ourselves too thin, but it looks pre-world war ii germany. i really think the dollar is going to be inflated because of the feds areney -- $85 into wall street

billion. host: is there a tie between what the federal reserve is doing in the budget that the president puts together that congress will -- congress' own budget, the spending that they do? guest: allguest: only in a very -- guest: only in a very limited sense in that it has a very profound impact on interest rates over time antigovernment baros money to finance spending because we have a deficit. -- and the government borrows money to finance spending because we have a deficit. they do not coordinate on that at all. the fed is responding to economic conditions. so as long as the economy remains weak, which is still is coming even though it is much better than it was, interest rates will quite likely be low, and the fed will support continuing that, and the government will be able to borrow a team or -- at cheaper rates. fed, speaking of the

former chairman ben bernanke purportedly made more money to they then he made all of last year as head of the federal reserve. thatrs had this story bernanke was paid at least a 250,000 dollars for his first public speaking engagements in abu dhabi since stepping down in january. that compares to his 2013 and the of $199,700, appearance was only the first of three around the world this week. all right, let's go to manchester, tennessee, democrat caller. norma, you were on with zachary goldfarb of the "washington post ." caller: hello. i draw $946. that is how i pay my rent, and by the time i pay my light bill, i hardly have food left to buy your food, your groceries and

stuff. i wonder -- what is president obama going to do about the people that are on social security? is he going to plan on raising social security so people can make a little bit more affordable so they can live off of? that is my question. guest: until recently, there had not been significant cost-of- living adjustments in social security because inflation had been very, very low in the recession in the years following. the debate going forward unfortunately for current retirees and future retirees is not whether to enhance social security benefits but whether to trim them. no one is going to see their social security benefit go down, but the row question is whether adjustments over time will be less generous. the president has opened the door and republicans generally favor what is known as chained cpi, which is a less generous

measure of inflation and cost- of-living increases. many economists say it is a much more accurate measure. many democrats do not like the idea because the trims benefits, entrance the growth of future benefits for retirees. for current retirees, as i said, the row question in the future is will benefits go more slowly? there will not be cut, but will they grow more slowly. there is no talk of increasing them faster. host: zachary

>> the headline on "the philadelphia inquirer" reads said the state's obama nominee. during the bow on the nominee debo adegbile what can you tell us about the mumia case and the nominee himself? >> the mumia case is a flashpoint for more than three decades involving a

murder 1981 of a philadelphia police officer killed after pulling over mumia and others who were in the car the officer was shot and apply a he was lying on the ground he was shot and killed and mumia was convicted there was long-running disputes whether he got a fair trial what role if any race played. you have people and celebrities across the country and across the world with european parliament's have taken this up if he got a fair trial to serve the death penalty and other people say he is a cold-blooded cop killer. you can imagine the emotions that stirred up. >> host: the man nominated

for the head of the civil-rights commission debo adegbile what was his involvement? >> he worked as the naacp attorney the legal defense fund filed amicus briefs and eventually he was then head of the legal defense fund and became his attorney after the death penalty was thrown out with ongoing appeals but the prosecutors to get it reinstated and he supervised and fought against the death penalty. >> host: 47 / 58 long dash 42 including eight democratic senators and pennsylvania to senators. what do we hear about the of motive for -- motivation against cloture? >> in pennsylvania you want to be on this side of mumia

as a law maker. any appeal is met with strong opposition by law enforcement a district attorney also opposed the nomination. is the matter of pennsylvania law makers don't want to be ec to be on the side of mumia who is a cop killer. >> host: what lobbying effort was made for capitol hill? did the administration actually think there was a chance they could win the vote? >> if it was brought up it is unusual to bring up the boat when democrats know they will fail. was very surprised it came up short provide no the

republican and democratic senators wrote op-eds coming campaigning with the district attorney, talking to his colleagues i don't think even they thought they had the votes. i think a rate even surprised how many turned out. >> host: we showed you a tweet about the reaction from the white house following the vote today what is the likelihood this nomination could be brought back to the senate floor? >> guest: i have passed senator reid's office i have not heard back but it seems to the size of the deficit in senator courted is not here but to get those many people to turn around seems highly unlikely. a number of the democrats who voted against him come from red states are up for reelection or both. they're concerned about

casting any vote which would be seen casting the side of mumia. >> host: you can follow jonathan tamari reporting at "the philadelphia inquirer." think you for joining us. iowa. mr. harkin: earlier today, a vote was taken in the united vote was taken in the united >> earlier today a vote was taken in the united states and that. but to this senator, marked about the lowest point that lig i think this sent senate has descended into my 30 years. for president clinton. i kind of thought that was a sham. but that didn't compare to what happened today. the vote on debo adegbile to be

assistant attorney general for civil rights sent a strong message. here's the message we sent tod today. you young people, listen you. -- you young people, listen up. if you are a young white person and you go to work for a law firm. you're a lawyer, sworn in to the ball, you go to work for a law firm. you're a white person. and that law firm defends you to a pro bono case to defend someone who killed eight people someone who killed eight people to defend someone whefo killed eight people in cold blood, s we rely on you to defend that person.obli my revised from what happened today, you should do that.use it is part of your legal obligation and profession.d

because if you do that, who knows? you might wind up to be the chief justice of the united states supreme court. however, if you are a young black person in go to work for the naacp legal defense fund a and they assign you in and do your obligations as an attorney and the oath of office they assign you to appeal a case of someone who committed a heinous murder murder, and you do that and sign your name on the appeal. you're not defending him but they ask you to sign on the appeal. you do that. your ass to do that if you are a young black person

with the legal defense fund naacp with someone convicted of murder but the message said today -- said today is don't do it. don't do it. if you do keeping with your legal obligation and profession you will be denied by the u.s. senate from being an attorney in the u.s. department of justice. i guess what i am saying is we sent a message we have a double standard. a terrible double standard. the chief justice of the supreme court defended a mass murder in florida who committed eight murders. he is the chief justice of the supreme court did we hear one peep from the republican side or anyone? no one on the senate floor ever raised that as an issue

at all for his qualification to be a judge on the appeals court or the chief justice of the supreme court. rightfully so. it should not have been an issue. he was fulfilling his legal obligations. his moral duty aside from his legal duty. but debo adegbile, working as attorney for the naacp legal defense fund would not have to defend the murderer but just ask to join on the appeal on a technicality. he did. and be coz of that and only because of that he was excoriated here on the senate floor and denied denied, denied his opportunity to be an assistant attorney general for civil rights. did anyone raise it issue of

his qualifications? no. he is qualified. the person after person spoke about the heinous murder that took place in philadelphia of a police officer by yet a young black man who would brag about it. a heinous crime. horrible crime. debo adegbile did not defend him in did not even know the guy. but yet, the but yet i listen to the senator from pennsylvania this morning had a big poster with the picture of the police officer and his wife of their wedding day. talking about how horrible of a crime this word in they brag about it. it had nothing to do with debo adegbile that the senators said that is why he should not be approved to be assistant attorney general

because he signed an appeal. what about that guy sitting over there? that chief justice of the supreme court that defended eight people? maybe we should institute the impeachment process let's do that. maybe my friends in the republican side did not know this about john roberts but he defended a mass murderer. maybe that is what we have to do to bring up the peach pit process for the chief justice because he fulfilled his legal obligations to defend the murder. i hope you see the ridiculousness of that argument. and how unfair it was 49 to be denied not on the basis of any qualification i have

not heard one person said he was unqualified or did something that would disqualify komen no. he did what he was supposed to do within his legal profession. and denied, ashamed, shame on this senate. shame on every senator who claims to be a lawyer. who went to law school, a sort to the bar, shame on every lawyer. who voted against debo adegbile because of what he did on that appeal. because of the fact he signed on the appeal. now, if somebody had some question about his qualifications he is unqualified, that is a different story. that is a different story. i challenge anyone to come forward with anything remotely, remotely connected

to his qualifications to show him disqualified. i will read a quote from the president of the american bar association. listen up lawyers quotation a fundamental tenet of our constitution anyone that faces loss of liberty has the right to legal counsel. lawyers have an ethical obligation to uphold that principle and provide zealous representation to people who otherwise would stand alone against the power and resources of the government. even those accused and convicted of terrible crimes. i was a warrant to learn there was opposition to the debo adegbile nomination solely based on the effort to protect the rights of an unpopular clients while

working at the legal defense fund. his work by those who provide thousands of hours of pro bono services every year is consistent with the tradition of the legal profession and should be commended, not condemned. '' shameful. shameful move today a rush to judgment based on emotion. based on emotion. i will not name any names but one senator said my head tells me we -- he should be confirmed by my emotions say no. we make decisions based on that? got help us. god help us. maybe we should go back and watch the movie again "to kill a mockingbird." read the book. watched the movie and know what it is to stand up the

powers of government to defend someone who was not popular. and debo adegbile did not even do that. he was not the defense attorney but the appeal. shame on the fraternal order of police. shame. they have been my strong supporter but shame on them. shame on them. they mounted a campaign against debo adegbile just based on that. shame. on all of us here especially the lawyers, especially the lawyers. it was a rush to judge me and a shameful us -- an episode in the history of the united states senate. . . on a

motion to reconsider will have the votes to take his position as assistant attorney general for civil rights in the justice department. a shameful day for the united states senate. i